Author Topic: why would they  (Read 683 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bullseye

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: why would they
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2022, 05:14:PM »
Agree with you fairplay1, I have nothing but respect for Sandra and all her hard work and dedication she has put in over the years, putting up with the threats she received and all the stuff that’s said about her online. She handles it well, no way I could do it.

As I said I would love to see an independent review and evidence being retested. Some sort of enquiry. One thing is for sure, this case and the questions that come with it has not gone away in 17 years and I can’t see how it’s going to stop until the case is properly reviewed or Luke gets out. If he does get out on parole and he is innocent I’m sure he will continue to fight to prove this.

Offline Fairplay1

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: why would they
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2022, 09:37:PM »
Agree with you fairplay1, I have nothing but respect for Sandra and all her hard work and dedication she has put in over the years, putting up with the threats she received and all the stuff that’s said about her online. She handles it well, no way I could do it.

As I said I would love to see an independent review and evidence being retested. Some sort of enquiry. One thing is for sure, this case and the questions that come with it has not gone away in 17 years and I can’t see how it’s going to stop until the case is properly reviewed or Luke gets out. If he does get out on parole and he is innocent I’m sure he will continue to fight to prove this.




Yes fully agree , nearly 20 years and like you can only see resolve coming from an Independent Enquiry I think it's time to test the case it's an ideal case to test those great forensic advancement techniques and bring a much more understandable forensic analysis , it would shut the discussion down with the possablility of conclusive DNA results left on Jodi body and clothes .  It's all very messy with all the changing statements , dog doing a Houdini act in time for trial all very messy. But no type of forensic science played a part in this trial I think with today's technology science could finish this and bring it to a definitive conclusion , and then maybe after just about 20 years Jodi will be able to rest in peace .  Here's hoping theirs more like us, an Enquiry will end this and I really think it's the right thing to do for all of us and of course the families who have had to deal with the worst trauma and that's the Mitchell's and the Jones and all the people in Dalkieth , I can only see good coming from a Enquiry , I think we just need the evidence reviewed and everything else will follow suit

Offline Germane

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: why would they
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2022, 02:35:AM »

Yes I agree parole may come first but I absolutely believe an Enquiry will happen , it may happen after the evidence that is left ( I read but would have to go back and source , that evidence at least some of it his held for a certain time it might be 30 years but I really need to check where I read it.

 I would hope in particular Jodi trousers which had male unidentified DNA on zip, button and inside leg will be there.  People have a right to appeal esp with a case like this where  there was no forensic analysis giving any conclusive evidence. Stefan Kiszco held for 17 years for a murder in 1975 so their was evidence from that trial retested that got the right killers profile , so if they just throw evidence away whilst a. A person is says their innocent and b. The case is purely cicumstansctial , the advancements in forensic technology could become available that could bring more conclusive results, that I would think is fair.

I also agree Sandra Lean has the most detailed information that is why she can dedicate hundreds of pages in a book to outline the flaws in this full investigation.  I find it laughable that people think she is lying about everything . If they read the book it is full of detail and can really be backed up with some media reporting and the crumbs we get via Scot court on the appeal docs.

But then their is the question of why , why stay in an area where the abuse and hate for her opinion and something she feels strongly about is faced with rude, bullying and just horrible behaviour esp on forums.

Someone thinks Sandra is not being transparent , she didicated a book to the case , she furthers her own knowledge by achieving qualifications relating to the subject. She PUBLICALLY with her OWN name out here in the public , opened to all sorts of questions which again she does PUBLICALLY. Whereas we have a Scottish criminal justice system that hide most away from the public, never come out to defend their case . Not one expert has PUBLICALLY came out and tell us why they have faith in guilt, not one book, not one documentary supporting guilt , the only people not being transparent is the criminal justice system in Scotland.

Further , Sandra lean had two daughters ages with Jodi and Luke why would she make up lies to get a murderer out in the same streets as her own children , she does not come across as some type of nutter who has no concern for her own children safety .  So their is no logical sense why she would put her own children at harm unless she feels very strongly that the person in prison is not correct, now I can see that being motivational the fact that the killer is still in her area therefore her children are not safe.

The character assignation of this lady by computer bods who's only agenda is to discredit , troll and just horrible vile comments about a lady who's only crime is to report on the bias and unfair treatment of a 15 year old , I'm thankful she has shown courage , determination and has been as transparent as this Scottish legal systems allow.  She has said for years she cannot put all out in the public, my feelings are if their was no truth in this then legal minded person would come out and say she is lying she can show it , in light of that never been done I can only concur that Sandra Lean is telling the truth.

I believe a fresh forensic analysis will bring resolve for all, and that will be followed by the Enquiry if that real evidence points to another person , the Enquiry will  follow suit depending on results. 15- 25 years can be an averag time for these type of cases getting sorted out , it's painthfully slow as ther s many parties involved and these institutes don't take accountability freely but it will happen as more fair minded people read about this the more out rage will be built forcing an fair review esp when it comes to the forensic analysis on this case, that needs explaining its not an area that doesn't matter this type of evidence far out weighs a phone log of Luke calling the talking clock . We need real unmovable evidence to seal this case with reassurance and certainty.???

I would be all for the forensics in this case being retested and reanalysed, but think it’s a forlorn hope as the initial management of the crime scene on the morning of 01.07.03 was not ideal and likely resulted in crucial evidence being lost. I know the locus presented logistical problems due to how inaccessible it was and how trees and branches prevented a police marquee being erected right there and then at the locus, but leaving the body uncovered for 8 hours, exposing it to the rain and elements, was totally unprofessional. In addition to this, they rolled Jodi’s body onto a plastic sheet and moved it from its original position, and piled Jodi’s clothes on top of one another, possibly causing cross-contamination. So, there you have it — right away the investigation was off to an inauspicious start, with potentially lost vital DNA and degraded and contaminated DNA. But, even if the DNA was retested and analysed with the best technology has to offer, what really will the results yield? Nothing I suspect. Besides, as part of the SCCRC’s review in 2014, the DNA was tested again by experts and all that was found were 2 unidentified profiles likely originating from semen on the top of Jodi’s trousers. Now, a lot of people would naturally worry about unidentified profiles, but you have to remember that the crime scene was in a woodland that was frequented by a lot of youths, courting teenage couples, walkers and dog walkers, so there would be a lot of DNA present in the area — DNA that could be innocently transferred by an unknown, unidentified source. Also, like I said, the crime scene wasn’t ideally managed which likely resulted in degraded and contaminated DNA which yielded results that were of no use to the investigation (eg, inconclusive and non-reportable findings). I surmise that a lot of the unidentified profiles were innocently transferred by locals not involved in the case. It was interesting that DNA traces (semen) were found all over Jodi’s body, face and hands that produced mixed samples that had markers that matched the markers in Luke’s profile,  so I wonder if the forensics department analysed these and looked at the loci and alleles to see who the likely contributor was?

Offline Germane

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: why would they
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2022, 03:02:AM »
What I’m essentially saying, is that while DNA can often produce concrete, irrefutable
proof, it sometimes can create more questions than answers — like with this case. Bottom line is: DNA is not a magical silver bullet. This is compounded by people’s lack of understanding of how DNA works, how it is tested and what its results mean. There is also the problem that many forensics experts do their work differently from lab to lab, and are often analysing and testing in line with what they have been instructed, to suit a particular theory or narrative (eg, the prosecution’s narrative and terms of reference).

Offline Fairplay1

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: why would they
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2022, 01:03:PM »
I would be all for the forensics in this case being retested and reanalysed, but think it’s a forlorn hope as the initial management of the crime scene on the morning of 01.07.03 was not ideal and likely resulted in crucial evidence being lost. I know the locus presented logistical problems due to how inaccessible it was and how trees and branches prevented a police marquee being erected right there and then at the locus, but leaving the body uncovered for 8 hours, exposing it to the rain and elements, was totally unprofessional. In addition to this, they rolled Jodi’s body onto a plastic sheet and moved it from its original position, and piled Jodi’s clothes on top of one another, possibly causing cross-contamination. So, there you have it — right away the investigation was off to an inauspicious start, with potentially lost vital DNA and degraded and contaminated DNA. But, even if the DNA was retested and analysed with the best technology has to offer, what really will the results yield? Nothing I suspect. Besides, as part of the SCCRC’s review in 2014, the DNA was tested again by experts and all that was found were 2 unidentified profiles likely originating from semen on the top of Jodi’s trousers. Now, a lot of people would naturally worry about unidentified profiles, but you have to remember that the crime scene was in a woodland that was frequented by a lot of youths, courting teenage couples, walkers and dog walkers, so there would be a lot of DNA present in the area — DNA that could be innocently transferred by an unknown, unidentified source. Also, like I said, the crime scene wasn’t ideally managed which likely resulted in degraded and contaminated DNA which yielded results that were of no use to the investigation (eg, inconclusive and non-reportable findings). I surmise that a lot of the unidentified profiles were innocently transferred by locals not involved in the case. It was interesting that DNA traces (semen) were found all over Jodi’s body, face and hands that produced mixed samples that had markers that matched the markers in Luke’s profile,  so I wonder if the forensics department analysed these and looked at the loci and alleles to see who the likely contributor was?

I agree with all that you say with regards to crime scene not being managed to a sufficient level this can be seen with all you have listed which are huge areas of concern , I don't belief we can just brush that under the carpet , those vital mistakes had serious consequences for Luke Mitchell . When you are made aware of these many examples of incompetence then add that to the media slander and character assignation on a 15 year old boy BEFORE trial how anyone can say they are satisfied with the verdict when they must be well aware of the inept investigation , even the appeal judges stated the adult police where outrageous , deplorable these are strong words , I simply can't understand why people can't see the police blunders like it means nothing , the very foundations of this case is crumbling because of all those police blunders , I certainly don't have faith in that investigation team and I base this on everything from above.

I disagree with you here germane , I often read and watch much about forensic science in the fight against crime , for one of the bloodiest scenes and the 100 pieces of evidence taken from the scene and their is a huge red flag that this information is coming back with no reportable results. I just don't believe it simple .  I think when their is a horrific murder and their is evidence of sperm on Jodi clothes and body with unidentified male profile that has to be continued to be tested , we may differ with this but the semen, hair, saliva found on Jodi , an answer scientifically should be sought till they get the hit.  Sorry,  I see this is one of the most important areas of evidence that needs clarified. It's not okay or it shouldn't be to just say well yeah someone left hair, sperm, blood saliva on Jodi and we don't really know who it is , awe should be fine we've got Luke calling the talking clock job done. I find the evidence even when you put it all together is weak at best but certainly in no way gives me total reassurance they got the right guy. The evidence that would have mattered to me and given me confidence in the conviction is all missing.

The forensic experts outlined on Frontline Scot and Channel 5 documentary state catagorically their is a problem with this case when it comes to the forensic analysis of the crime , I trust these experts views and this is why I can't let this area go , I believe this will be the silver bullet if Indepentently reexamined , I have faith the answer was always left on Jodi and it's time we received some clear understandable direction when it comes to this  undisputable evidence. This type of evidence should not be played down like it doesn't really matter, think stagg/ Napper case or Stefan Kizko/ castree both these men where free to go about and commit further crime whilst innocent men done their time, DNA advancements got the right guys in the end but the damage was immense esp to the further victims , all they have to do is demonstrate some due deligence and test the evidence make sure it's not another Napper or castree. It's the fair thing to do and will bring resolve no matter what way it goes .

I don't think he had a chance with an unfair trial and a seriously incompetent police investigation , the best way I can describe my view is if it was me and my child , I would not be happy with the treatment the Mitchell's received and he simply did not have a chance of a fair trial. I think a just fair thinking Person can see how off it is and no amount going round the houses will change my view , he was presumed guilty with the complete and unethical practises adopted by the media and the police investigation to completely annihilate his character , it screams of unfairness .  I want them to give him the first fair hearing in 20 years and test the evidence with today's advancements , it could bring a conclusion which I really feel is needed , it must bring back all the trauma and never really has had a chance to grieve esp for Jodi Mum, I really think it has to move on and some reassurances must be given esp around those unidentified male DNA found on the victim, hopefully they will be working on this area now with his legal team , just hope for some resolve to come out of this .

Offline Davie2

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: why would they
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2022, 03:08:PM »
I often read and watch much about forensic science in the fight against crime

Do you? I cannot wait to read more of your expert forensic analysis.




I want them to give him the first fair hearing in 20 years

Not how it will work, but anyway, probably best you get Shane on side, lol.


chance to grieve esp for Jodi Mum

Never realised you are the Jones spokesperson?

Offline Fairplay1

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: why would they
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2022, 01:26:PM »
Do you? I cannot wait to read more of your expert forensic analysis.




Not how it will work, but anyway, probably best you get Shane on side, lol.


Never realised you are the Jones spokesperson?


It's only by viewing other cases where the police and forensic teams complete outstanding work that I make the comparison to this investigation. I have never really looked in to miscarriages I was more interested in the opposite side , where the police and forensic teams complete an investigation to a high standard .  This case stands out to me because of the many flaws and incompetence of the police investigation in comparison to the excellent work carried out by police on other cases.

Shane can offer nothing he like many other witnesses have a serious problem with memory ( everybody involved in this case where all smoking from the Devils garden , maybe the strain was very strong this might account for Moped boys not having a clue to why they where at a murder scene at the time a horrific murder happened.

Shane's evidence was pointless he did not say Luke was not in the house he simply did not know , maybe Luke was in the toilet or maybe in the garden letting the dog out who knows but his evidence was he did not know.  So why does he not support , well we have no idea .  It could be that the papers reported that Shane did not give him an alibi , possible he feels responsible for his wee brother going to prison as the papers and all the guilty mob say Shane says he wasn't there when in reality he just didn't know.

It's also possible that Shane dosnt support which would raise some flags but we just don't know , I believe he has his own family maybe after the horrendous way the media, police treated Luke and his mum he went into the background for self preservation and to have some type of life that is away from public glare and scrutiny- I could understand this on some level.

But in essence I would agree with this area of doubt but I am basing this on myself if it was my brother and I knew 100% he was innocent I would fight for him but that's me and like I say I don't think Shane can offer much in the way of definitive proof as he just did not know , he was unsure and he stated as much to the police many times and also to the qc at court.

I'm not a spokesperson Dave for the Jones family but any person with empathy can see the Jones family have not had a chance to grieve and that is not okay after 18 years , it must be raw but whilst understanding their grief it cannot detract from the issues around Luke Mitchels plight to clear his name he has that right and the evidence ( forensic analysis) tells me he has every right to fight it.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 10:06:AM by Fairplay1 »